Manvendra Singh Parihar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that successive anticipatory bail applications are maintainable if there is a material change in circumstances. In the earlier round, the applications were rejected based on the stage of investigation, seriousness of allegations, and absence of exceptional circumstances. The present applications were founded on subsequent events, specifically the compromise initiated between the parties and admitted monetary transfers. The Court found that the dispute arose from property and financial transactions, and the subsequent conduct of the parties, including mediation, compromise, quashing of the Negotiable Instruments Act case, and effecting financial transfers, reduced the necessity for custodial interrogation, especially since the transactions were documentary. The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the State on the Apex Court decision in Salochna Prdi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, noting that in that case, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had already been initiated and the accused declared absconding, which was not the case here. The Court concluded that mere proposal or initiation of such proceedings without finality cannot disentitle the applicants, particularly when subsequent developments indicated cooperation. Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that the applicants had made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants were directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to compliance with specified conditions.

Facts

The applicants, Manvendra Singh Parihar, Gautam Rai Rally, Gulshan Rai Rally, and Smt. Priya Rally, sought anticipatory bail. Their earlier applications had been dismissed on merits. The case involves a complaint by Dheeraj Prakash Agrawal alleging that the applicants demanded Rs. 50 lakhs for releasing a mortgaged property, received over Rs. 30 lakhs initially and further amounts totaling Rs. 50 lakhs, but failed to deposit the money with the bank and the property was not mortgaged as claimed. The applicants countered by alleging a property transaction with the complainant for Rs. 20.70 crores, against which the complainant had paid Rs. 1.40 crores, and that a cheque issued by the complainant had dishonored. The prosecution registered a crime under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The applicants argued that a subsequent settlement in a cheque dishonor case (under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) and substantial monetary transfers by the complainant to the applicants' accounts constituted a material change in circumstances.

Key Issues

1. Whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail applications to warrant a fresh consideration. (Question of law) 2. Whether the compromise and subsequent monetary transfers between the parties, in the context of a criminal case registered under the BNS, negate the necessity for custodial interrogation. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner/Appellant's arguments: - There has been a material and significant change in circumstances, specifically a successful mediation and compounding of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, followed by substantial monetary transfers aggregating to Rs. 71,00,000/- from the complainant's firms to the applicants' accounts. - These developments indicate that the surviving dispute is purely civil in nature, not warranting custodial interrogation. - The applicants undertake to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed. - Relied on the principle that successive applications are maintainable if there's a material change in circumstances. Revenue/State's arguments: - The applicants are involved in multiple complaints and allegations of financial irregularities, GST evasion, and income concealment. - The previous rejection of anticipatory bail was based on the seriousness of allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation, and no exceptional circumstances warranting a change have arisen. - The withdrawal of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not nullify the allegations in the present case. - The monetary transfers were made to avoid being branded a defaulter in a civil dispute and do not amount to exoneration. - Arrest warrants have been issued against applicant Gautam Rai Rally in similar cases. - There is no substantial change in circumstances.